A lawyer who represented a child sexual assault accused was made the chairperson of a government body that looks after the welfare of children, right in the middle of the case. A man mandated to head the welfare of children in a district was accused of behaving inappropriately with a child in his care. A body that’s supposed to look after children helped abduct a child from an unwed mother at the behest of her politically influential father. These are just some of the allegations directed at the Child Welfare Committees (CWCs) in Kerala and the people heading them. Activists say that the entire system is corrupt, with political favouritism being the only consideration in appointing those entrusted with the care of children in Kerala.
There were 4,350 crimes against children reported in 2021 in Kerala, and the number stands at over 2,100 in just the first five months of 2022. In comparison, the number of cases in 2016 was 2,879. As per the NCRB data, 1,22,064 cases were reported in 2020 across India.
Yet, the issue of protection and welfare of children is hardly taken seriously by the state government, allege activists. The CWCs fail at following up with survivors, leading to children being abused again, and are not looking to come up with methods to prevent repeat crimes by people accused of child sexual abuse who are out on bail. Worse, the CWC has no system to support survivors, which is leading to a number of child sexual abuse victims killing themselves, activists allege.
As per the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, state governments must constitute one or more CWCs in each district to take care of issues related to children. The JJ Act says that CWCs are responsible for ensuring care, protection, and appropriate rehabilitation or restoration of children in need of care and protection.
“The Committee shall consist of a Chairperson and four other members as the State Government may think fit to appoint, of whom at least one shall be a woman and another an expert on the matters concerning children,” the JJ Act says.
Kerala has 14 CWCs, one in each district.
In 2017, 41 children went missing from a specialised adoption agency named Divine Providence Foundling Home (Karuna Bhavan) in Idukki’s Rajakkad. There were reports that some of the children were given up for adoption illegally, without registering their names in the government adoption system. A 1.5-year-old girl also died in the home, allegedly due to negligence. The home was shut down by the government, but the investigation into the allegations does not seem to have reached anywhere.
In 2019, a lawyer named N Rajesh was appointed as the chairman of the Palakkad CWC. During his tenure, Rajesh was the counsel for one of the men accused in the sexual assault and death of two minor girls — siblings — in Walayar. The children were sexually abused by multiple adults over a long period of time. The elder sibling died on January 13, 2017 and the younger one on March 4, 2017, both allegedly by suicide.
While all accused have a right to a fair trial, and Rajesh as a lawyer cannot be castigated for representing an accused, his appointment to a government post in the middle of a high profile case was seen as problematic by many activists and citizens. The public outrage against his appointment soon led to his removal from the post. However, according to people who have been working closely with CWCs for several years now, this was just one instance of politicians seemingly meddling in sensitive issues.
PE Usha, a children and women’s rights activist, tells TNM that in the Walayar case chargesheet, Rajesh’s appointment as CWC chairman while representing the accused is not mentioned allegedly in order to protect him from being declared an accused. “In the enquiry report submitted to the Social Justice Department after this, it was mentioned that he shouldn’t be entrusted with any children’s affairs,” she adds.
In 2020, a child sexual abuse survivor from Kannur gave a confidential statement before a magistrate that she was harassed by the then CWC Kannur chairman ED Joseph. The 15-year-old girl alleged that he misbehaved with her during a counselling session. Earlier, the girl’s 17-year-old sister, who also attended a counselling session with Joseph, had reportedly given a similar statement to the magistrate. Following this, Joseph was removed from his post. The girls gave statements that Joseph used derogatory and sexually explicit language. However, he claimed that he only asked the girls whether they had engaged in sexual intercourse.
“We had 12 homes for Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act victims,” Usha says. “In our experience, children are scared to go to the CWC. They hate hearings at CWCs, it is clear how insensitively they are treated. We have ourselves seen how badly CWCs behave towards children, how they judge mothers who come there with their children,” she says.
“In the JJ Act, the constitution of a CWC has been made flexible so that they can be more sensitive towards children. But in Kerala, they have manipulated it to such an extent that nobody suitable has been appointed. In almost all cases, the victims are from very vulnerable families, so when justice is denied to them nobody questions it. That is how CWCs manipulate the cases,” Usha says.
Another major allegation against a CWC — this time the Thiruvananthapuram chapter — came in 2021 in the infamous Anupama Chandran case. Anupama is the daughter of Jayachandran, an influential CPI(M) politician from Thiruvananthapuram. On October 22, 2020, Anupama — who wasn’t married at the time — gave birth to a baby boy. Jayachandran separated the baby from Anupama without her consent and gave it up for adoption, and the CWC is accused of colluding with the Sisu Kshema Samithi (Kerala Council for Child Welfare) in technically abducting the child.
The CWC published a news report announcing that on October 23, 2020 — the day the child was taken away from Anupama — a girl child was received at an electronic cradle in Thiruvananthapuram’s Thycaud and that she was named Malala. This is a mandatory announcement that the CWC has to issue so that any parent who may be looking for their missing child can find the child with the given details, before the child is put up for adoption. The CWC misgendered the child in their advertisement, allegedly deliberately, to throw Anupama and her partner Ajith off the track.
It was also learnt that the CWC and the Sishu Kshema Samiti went ahead with the adoption procedure for the baby even after Anupama and Ajith approached them asking for the baby back.
“In Anupama’s case, the then Thiruvananthapuram CWC chairperson gave a Legally Free for Adoption certificate in a hurry. When Anupama went to the CWC in search of her child, the baby was still in the custody of the CWC and yet they did not do a DNA test, and sped up the adoption process,” Usha explains.
The recent appointments of CWC members in several districts on June 16, 2022 were also controversial due to allegations of favouritism – there are complaints that most of them were based on recommendations from the ruling Left Democratic Front government. In Malappuram district, there was a huge row over the competence of the newly appointed members. “Except the chairperson, none of the members have expertise in matters related to children. Almost all of them are CPI(M) appointments. The chairperson is the CPI(M) Ponnani South local secretary. Just because they are lawyers doesn’t mean that they can deal with child rights sensitively,” says a social worker from the district.
Advocate Rajeev N, who has been appointed as Pathanamthitta CWC chairperson, also has held positions in CPI(M). He was the Eraviperoor Panchayat president who contested and won under the CPI(M) banner.
In Kollam, Alappuzha and Wayanad too, there are complaints that the CWC appointees are either members of ruling front parties or close to leaders.
Chapter 5 of the JJ Act says, “No person shall be appointed as a member of the Committee unless such person has been actively involved in health, education or welfare activities pertaining to children for at least seven years or is a practising professional with a degree in child psychology or psychiatry or law or social work or sociology or human development.”
Advocate J Sandhya, a women and child rights activist and former member of the Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (KeSCPCR), says that the JJ Act clearly provides the criteria for forming the CWC, which the government must make the best use of. “The problem is not with the Act, but with favouritism. Even if they want to give the posts to party sympathisers, there are many experts. But there is no fair selection, only influential people are getting selected,” she says.
Most of the social workers who express displeasure at the appointments don’t want to be named as they are working within the government system or are closely associated with the system.
“Even opposition parties do not make a fuss as they make similar appointments when they are in power. Though this is the practice in various commissions, at least in the case of CWC, which is related to children, they should bring in specialists,” says a child rights expert from Thiruvananthapuram district.
Another common complaint raised against CWCs in the state is that they are not using their powers effectively. “They can take up issues with the authorities easily, but they hardly do that,” says Sandhya.
The child rights worker from Malappuram points out that currently most CWCs only involve themselves with signing papers on where a child survivor should be admitted. “That job can be done by a clerk, why do we need a five-member committee for that? They have the scope to question the limitations in the existing law, they can make strong decisions, and take up each case and act. But they are not doing it… no follow-ups done in individual cases, no psychological support to children. So we’re seeing an increase in the number of suicides among POCSO victims,” he says.
Sandhya points out that CWCs should consider what they deal with not as cases but as someone’s life, adding, “The body should be independent of political affiliations. It should have the freedom to make decisions without any pressure. For that, appointments should be fair.”
Another lawyer who was a former CWC member says, “Ideally, the committee should consist of psychologists, lawyers, social workers and those who specialise in human development. Though this is given as an option in the JJ Act, it will strengthen the system. But with political favouritism, namesake appointments are being made.”
He adds, “School teachers recommended by an influential person in the political party are appointed so that they meet the criteria of “person actively involved in education of children”. Same with lawyers, Social Work degree holders, etc. with no expertise are selected. Sensitivity or experience in working among children is not given any value.”